Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vulson/Archive

04 October 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

See history of Kingdom of Araucanía and Patagonia. IPs have been pushing a POV since the last pretender to the throne died, as two factions claim to be his successor. The current modus operandi is: IP adds soapbox material, gets reverted by Vulson, then adds more material, gets some reverted, etc. Last edit is always a revertion by Vulson, but when you compare editions skipping intermediates, the modification has been delivered: it is a cloaking technique. The other two users seem to have been made purposely to edit there too. Langus (t) 04:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Additional information: The delta you're considering (between revision 627641203 of 05:25, 30 September 2014 by Langus-TxT, and revision 628141867 of 22:55, 3 October 2014 by Vulson) actually includes two reverts from me here and here.
 * The two diffs that unmasks this cloaking technique are:
 * Between 05:25(UTC), 30 September 2014 Langus-TxT --- and 20:11(UTC), 1 October 2014 Vulson (shown here)


 * Between 20:52(UTC), 1 October 2014 Langus-TxT --- and 22:55(UTC), 3 October 2014 Vulson (shown here)
 * To be clear: this cloaking technique has so far involved Vulson and the IPs 80.12.35.127, 84.102.116.108 and 77.12.183.130.


 * The other 2 editors are single-purpose accounts that have only a few editions and that were actively pushing the same POV (see: ). I included them because it's the same pattern as Vulson and the IPs mentioned above.
 * Regarding the other IPs, I have to admit that I included them "just in case", given the cleverness shown by Vulson. Some of them show a push for the same POV that Vulson et al, but at least one of them shows the exact opposite opinion. Feel free to ignore them if you think it's unwarranted. --Langus (t) 04:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Very interesting theory, but if I take a look at all that has changed at the end of the day only this shows. Seems like a lot of work (and disagreeing socks) to pull this off as socking. Can you prove your point more? --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  17:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As I suspected, CU doesn't really back up this case. While it's still possible in the end, the behavoiral evidence is far from conclusive to draw togeather the little CU has to offer to call these accounts the same. I've protected the page in the time being, maybe we'll get better editing patterns from that. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  16:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)